Ashalata Puhan vs State Of Odisha And Others

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. M. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client was appointed as Master Book Keeper (MBK) by the Gram Panchayat Level Federation (GPLF) but illegally removed on 4th April, 2021. His client approached the Child Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer (CDO), who caused enquiry, conducted on 24th May, 2022. The findings were communicated to the Block Development Officer (BDO) on 26th August, 2022. In view of the findings, the CDO observed that due procedure for removal of petitioner had not been followed. So necessary action may be taken at addressee’s level to restore previous status. The BDO by communication dated 3rd September, 2022 instructed the GPLF, though its President/Secretary (opposite party nos.7 and 8), inter alia, to take necessary early steps for restoration of previous status of petitioner. Mr. Das submits, inspite thereof nothing was done. Hence, his client is before Court seeking relief.

Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, the CDO and BDO have duly acted. Petitioner should be reinstated.

Mr. N. C. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of the GPLF though opposite party nos.7 and 8. He submits, as per GPLF operation manual, legal form of GPLF is an autonomous body of Self Help Groups (SHGs) and may be registered under appropriate Act as per law of the land. He submits, his clients represent the Federation. It is unregistered. In the circumstances, it does not constitute an authority for issuance of writ.

Without prejudice he submits, the GPLF being an autonomous body, the CSO and BDO had no business in interfering with its affairs, to direct reinstatement of petitioner. He relies on clause 3.5.1 (3) in the manual, giving right to the GPLF to remove, inter alia, MBK. The clause is reproduced below.

“3.5.1 (3) The GPLF-EC will have the right to remove the Master book-keeper & CRP from its services for reasons it deems sufficient, including financial misappropriation, poor performance, or any other reasons deemed to adversely affect the functioning of the GPLF & SHG. ”

(emphasis supplied)

Upon petitioner having been removed, a person has been appointed, deliberately not made party in the writ petition.

Reliance on behalf of the GPLF, for its constitution and authority, is based on GPLF operation manual issued under Odisha Livelihood Mission, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Odisha. Coming into being, existence an operation is therefore under the manual issued by said department of State. Administrative functionaries of State having been approached by petitioner have caused enquiry and instruction to the GPLF, to reinstate petitioner. Keeping that in mind there also must be adjudication of assertion made on behalf of the GPLF that it has, under the manual, right to remove, inter alia, MBK. The manual by clause 3.5.1(3) provides for removal of, inter alia, MBK from service for reasons deemed sufficient by the GPLF, including financial misappropriation, poor performance or any other reason deemed to adversely affect functioning of, inter alia, the GPLF. Nothing has been disclosed or produced by opposite party nos.7 and 8 to contradict the enquiry report, informed to the BDO by the CDO. It is exactly for that omission the BDO instructed the GPLF to reinstate petitioner. It appears, in perpetration of perfecting the disengagement, the GPLF has appointed another. That cannot stand in the way to allow the GPLF to not comply with the instruction received from the BDO.

At this stage, Mr. N. C. Das submits, his client has only filed a preliminary counter. There be adjournment to enable his client to file further comprehensive counter. This submission is rejected. The procedure does not admit of filing two counters. Furthermore, adjudication has been made on all points submitted at the Bar.

State through its functionaries, being opposite party nos.1 to 6, will enforce instruction given by the BDO on said communication dated 3rd September, 2022 for the GPLF (opposite party nos.7 and 8) to forthwith comply. In this regard, State will do all things necessary under the manual and exercise their administrative powers to ensure compliance, within three weeks from date. It is expected that opposite party nos.7 and 8 will forthwith comply. Petitioner will communicate this order to opposite party no.6.

The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.

………………………………